Re: Words for the Triangles

* Heather Kreger <[email protected]> [2002-09-25 16:03-0400]
> >    What the web did for program-to-user interactions, web services is
> >    poised to do for program-to-program interactions. Web services will
> >    help companies to reduce the cost of doing e-business, it will make it
> >    possible for them to deploy solutions more rapidly, and it will open
> >    up new opportunities for them. The key to reaching this new horizon is
> >    a common program-to-program communication model, built on existing and
> >    emerging standards such as HTTP, XML, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI.
> 
> I wouldn't list UDDI here: it hints that the "common
> program-to-program communication model" is based on a centralized
> registry.
> 
> <HK> UDDI is an 'emerging standard'. It does play a role, its not
> exclusive.
> We can add WSIL to broaden it. I think we are being way to sensitive about
> implying a central registry here and with the name 'registry' </HK>

I think that UDDI hints at a central registry solution, and putting it
in a sentence such as "the key to reaching this new horizon is a
common program-to-program communication model" definitely pushes in
this direction.

I would really like to see ", and UDDI" dropped here.

[..]
> > The Web Services Oriented Architecture Model
> >
> >    The web service architecture based upon the interactions between three
> >    roles: service provider, service discovery agency, and service
> >    requestor.
> 
> You were saying that you had issues finding a good way to call the
> discovery part. I have the feeling that it actually may not be easily
> described in terms of role.
> 
> In terms of abstract entities here, there is the provider and the
> consumer. The discovery is something which happens between the two of
> them, directly or indirectly. I would therefore suggest simply talking
> about "discovery mechanisms".
> <HK> So then do we have "publication mechanisms" as well? They are not
> necessarily symmetric. But what do we discover 'from'?
> </HK>

True, it may be better to have a "Publication and discovery
mechanisms" box. Then we can discover from anything: a registry, but
also dereferencing a URI, a spam, etc. And similarly, the publisher
can publish as it wants.

> >    The description of your service is used to publish it in a registry,
> >    directory, or repository of service descriptions. After publication,
> >    the registry also has a copy of your service description. At some
> >    later time, a service requestor needs to use a service just like
> >    yours. The service requestor, or client, finds your service in the
> >    registry and retrieves the WSDL from the registry.
> 
> This is a centralized view of the discovery step. I think that this
> could be changed by something like the "requestor somehow has access
> to the service description".
> <HK> Seems sorta vague "magic happens here". I meant to scrub the word
> registry for discovery agency but I missed a few...
> 
> We need to express what you can do with the description now that we have
> one.
> We also need to express that the timing is asynchronous.
> 
> Can we articulate a few patterns for publication to a 'discovery agency' -
> i.e. a central
> registry, a distributed registry (WSIL or just many federated registries),
> a single url, a database, passive publication
> (where a crawler for a registry finds it and populates it... but wait
> thats still central for that crawlers source and from the 'finders' point
> of
> view.) </HK>

That works for me. I just want to be careful about not advertising
that, for things to work, there needs to be a centralized registry
available. To make it simple, I wanted to just put a "magic happens
here" paragraph for now, but replacing it by a list of possibilities
works too.

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:[email protected] - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/